Once in a while, I like posting about a book that I've read recently, because it tends to open up some AH opportunities. The latest one is the Byzantine Republic, by Anthony Kaldellis, which attacks the idea that the Byzantine Empire was an oriental despotism. A few general points:
He makes an interesting point that I ignore. I tend to see it as a decadent and weak state, but the Byzantine Empire survived over a thousand years (longer if you see it as a continuation of the Roman state); that gives it a pretty good run as a society.
Second, the discourse doesn't reflect an oriental despotism, where the subjects are those for the Emperor to do with as he wills. On the contrary, the rhetoric and ideology sees the emperor as holding the state in trust for the people. And the rhetoric makes a distinction between the king and country, as it were; the historian Leon wrote that "soldiers fight on behalf of our basileia and the Christ-loving politeia of the Romans." In this light, the language of the last emperor is pretty revealing: "I do not have the right to give you the City, nor does anyone else of those who live in it. By a collective decision, we will all willingly die and not try to save our lives."
Or, to take a late 11th century example: a tyrant takes power by force; the basileus "receives power "by the good will of the multitude and the consent of the people." This is around the same time that Alexius Commenus tried to put Constantine Doukas on the throne, but, according to a chronicler, "the demos, with one voice, loudly shouted that they did not want to be ruled by him" and the coup fizzled.
There are surprising signs of secularism that we ignore. Chroniclers had no problem noting that an emperor was a deviant Arian heretic but just towards his subjects and restrained in his lifestyle; and many Byzantine chroniclers had no problem blaming the rise of the Turks or foreign policy losses on poor management.
It's an interesting book, and I recommend it.
He makes an interesting point that I ignore. I tend to see it as a decadent and weak state, but the Byzantine Empire survived over a thousand years (longer if you see it as a continuation of the Roman state); that gives it a pretty good run as a society.
Second, the discourse doesn't reflect an oriental despotism, where the subjects are those for the Emperor to do with as he wills. On the contrary, the rhetoric and ideology sees the emperor as holding the state in trust for the people. And the rhetoric makes a distinction between the king and country, as it were; the historian Leon wrote that "soldiers fight on behalf of our basileia and the Christ-loving politeia of the Romans." In this light, the language of the last emperor is pretty revealing: "I do not have the right to give you the City, nor does anyone else of those who live in it. By a collective decision, we will all willingly die and not try to save our lives."
Or, to take a late 11th century example: a tyrant takes power by force; the basileus "receives power "by the good will of the multitude and the consent of the people." This is around the same time that Alexius Commenus tried to put Constantine Doukas on the throne, but, according to a chronicler, "the demos, with one voice, loudly shouted that they did not want to be ruled by him" and the coup fizzled.
There are surprising signs of secularism that we ignore. Chroniclers had no problem noting that an emperor was a deviant Arian heretic but just towards his subjects and restrained in his lifestyle; and many Byzantine chroniclers had no problem blaming the rise of the Turks or foreign policy losses on poor management.
It's an interesting book, and I recommend it.